Is the Dem's assault on Talk Radio there last chance to keep the public unaware of their policies?

Question

The fairness doctrine that the Libs are trying to push will demand equal time on the radio for opposing points of view. This is an affront to free market principals. Air America is a failure and has no listeners. When radio stations are forced to air 3 hours of Lib talk, they will get no sponsers, thus lose money, thus they will stop airing both sides to avoid going broke. Is this how you see it? Is this a last ditch attempt to shut up their critics? Is an informed public to dangerous to them getting and keeping power?

Answer 1

No, it is an attempt to suppress ANY form of criticism with regards to legislation or policy. The Dem's will always try to subvert the system through machinations or judicial fiat. If the public is fully aware of the goings on and has the opportunity to review, research and react, the majority of legislation proposed by the "progressives" will be discovered for what it really is, ANTI-progressive or totalitarian in nature or substance.

I do not make this charge lightly. My congressman, Dennis Kucinich, has already written into his bill to revive "fairness", as to make political speech on a single issue from a single viewpoint from a single source a crime. The basis for the crime is "discrimination of race, gender, sex and CREED, as well as HATE SPEECH as applied under federal statute".
This is completely open ended and leaves EVERYONE open to legal attack. I will further add that this is far more insidious than the Patriot Act could ever be. To support this I refer you to this link, please read and watch carefully...
http://rss.townhall.com/trackback/hughhewitt/ecfd59a3-ac48-42d7-806e-f668249e6525/

Right now some will rise and clang pots and pans to point out my folly or in Kos-speak, "HYPOCRISY", but honestly, consider this for a moment. The PA is designed and applied to persons ACTIVELY ENGAGED in subversion for the purpose of committing MASS MURDER and PANIC against the UNITED STATES and it's CITIZENS in country or abroad. The PA does not stifle speech nor should it cause citizens worry that their individual liberty to seek redress or express grievance will be suppressed. However, "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" suppresses all objection in the effort to achieve "equality". This is the folly of convoluted Utopian reason. Marx called it "social-communism". With regards to what the major players in the Dem party are up to, I refer to this link...
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/1a251d4d-49f9-4973-a3e7-73d43fde640d


The truly sad part of this is not even "stalwart Republicans" can be counted on to resist the temptation to suppress their opposition. Witness to this effect the reactions of Sens. Lindsay Grahmn and Trent Lott, in their reaction to the public and vocal rejection of bad immigration legislation.

We must be vigilant. Do not accept platitudes for answers. Do not accept slogans for concepts and ideas. Do not accept sound-bites for truth. Do not accept the MSM as mainstream, for they most certainly are not in the majority or on the same river current as we are. Lastly,
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

I'm done and I yield the soap box.

Answer 2

Despite the glossy veneer of change and hope, Obama won the election the good-old-fashioned way: by making big promises to powerful constituencies including the labor unions, and the radical left elements of the Democratic Party. These special interests are looking for payback now, including a silencing of of conservative talk radio. It will be interesting to see how they justify it now, since the original justification of the Fairness Doctrine is irrelevant. In an earlier age, when a select few broadcast outlets collectively controlled the dissemination of news, it was at least arguably in the public interest that those few outlets provide some "balance." But with cable tv, satellite radio, pod casts and the internet there is a diversity of opinion to be had to anyone interested in seeking out alternate viewpoints. I think this decision will be a good barometer as to how Obama intends to conduct his administration. I'll also be interested in the reaction of the left, particularly those who have been vocal in terms of criticizing Bush's record on Constitutional issues.

Answer 3

BS. The fairness doctrine simply gives ALL sides a chance to be heard--reversing the deliberate gutting of the FCC authority by the right-wing in the 1990s.

No real American opposes having dissenting views having access to the PUBLIC airwaves. Only the neocons. But then, they aren't real Americans. The illegals understand and value this country and its liberty more than they do.

Answer 4

Yes, even Trent Lott is blaming Talk Radio for informing the public about the Amnesty Bill before they could shove it through.. He and many others are being Bombed with letters and petitions.. They want to control the media like Chavez. that is censorship plain and simple..

Answer 5

in 1969, the Supreme Court declared that the Fairness Doctrine is Constitutional. Why are Conservatives trying to tear down the Constitution.

Answer 6

Truly a conservative concept, keep only one side of the picture in view and that way even if it is inaccurate it is displayed in such a way as to glorify their hate network. Personally I like to see a whole picture without prejudice and make sound decisions as to what is right or wrong. . .

Answer 7

Or maybe they simply want republicans to start thinking for themselves by not listening to talk radio.


When I think talk radio listeners, the images of well informed people simply do not come to mind.

Answer 8

No, it's an effort to make the owners of radio stations, which are largely huge conservative conglomerates, to be fair so they don't only give radio time to only to conservative candidates and opinions.

Answer 9

yes it is , fairness is letting democracy work and let the people listen to what they want to listen to . Fairness is not forcing me to listen to your agenda

Answer 10

Plutarch would be writing about this in his "Fall of the American Republic" if he were alive today.